The Next Generation CubeSat

THE NEXT GENERATION CUBESAT
A MODULAR AND ADAPTABLE CUBESAT FRAME DESIGN
SPONSORS:
Dr. Jordi Puig-Suari Austin Williams
Aerospace Department Faculty Member Electrical Engineering Graduate Student
TEAM MEMBERS:
James Dolengewicz Lucas Whipple Stephanie Wong
Mechanical Engineering Mechanical Engineering Mechanical Engineering

Undergraduate Student Undergraduate Student Undergraduate Student
jdolenge@calpoly.edu lwhipple@calpoly.edu sdwong@calpoly.edu
© 2010 James Dolengewicz, Lucas Whipple, and Stephanie Wong

Next Generation Cubesat Page |2
STATEMENT OF DISCLAIMER
Since this project is a result of a class assignment, it has been graded and accepted as fulfillment of the
course requirements. Acceptance does not imply technical accuracy or reliability. Any use of
information in this report is done at the risk of the user. These risks may include catastrophic failure of
the device or infringement of patent or copyright laws. California Polytechnic State University at San
Luis Obispo and its staff cannot be held liable for any use or misuse of the project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sponsors: ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Team Members: .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Statement of Disclaimer ...................................................................................................................................................................2
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................6
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Sponsor Background and Needs........................................................................................................................................... 6
Formal Problem Definition ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Objective/Specification Development ............................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2: Final Design ....................................................................................................................................................................8
Current Design Iteration .......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Design Details ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Fulfillment of Design Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Specification Verification Checklist ................................................................................................................................... 10
Dynamic Analysis...................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Cost Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Material Selection ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Special Fabrication and assembly instructions ............................................................................................................ 12
Safety Considerations ............................................................................................................................................................. 12
Maintenance Considerations ............................................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 3: Design Verification Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Test Descriptions ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Assembly Test ...............................................................................................................................................................................................13
Integration Test............................................................................................................................................................................................13
Vibrations Test .............................................................................................................................................................................................13
Test Results ................................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Assembly Test ...............................................................................................................................................................................................13
Integration Test............................................................................................................................................................................................13
Vibrations Test .............................................................................................................................................................................................14
Chapter 4: Project Management Plan....................................................................................................................................... 14
Management Plan ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14
initial project management plan ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Chapter 5: Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Existing products ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Specific Technical Data ........................................................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 6: Design Development ................................................................................................................................................. 16
Concept - Option A ................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Concept - Option B.................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Concept - Option C .................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Concept Selection...................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 7: Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 19
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
Recommendations: .................................................................................................................................................................. 19
References ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Acronyms, Definitions, and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 20
List of Appendices .................................................................................................................................................................... 21

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2: Assembled Cube............................................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 1: Dissasembled Cube...................................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Ring and Rail iteration ............................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 4: Option A, concept design, consisting of 4 rails and 2top and bottom segments. ............................. 16
Figure 5: Option B, concept design, 'L' shaped rails with support bars on top and bottom........................... 17
Figure 6: Top view, cross section, of one of the rails with a bracket to show possible mounting points. 17
Figure 7: Option C, most ideal concept design, contains different views with boards integrated to show
how the 'Hat' design and solar panels would mount on the structure ................................................................... 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Technical specifications of CubeSat Structure ................................................................................................... 7
Table 2: Improvements Matrix .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Table 3: Specifications Vibration Checklist ........................................................................................................................ 10
Table 4: Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Table 5: CDS Relevant Dimensions for All CubeSat Structures .................................................................................. 15

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The goal of this project is to develop an improved next-generation CubeSat structure for Cal Poly’s PolySat
program. Notable achievements include significantly increased ease of access, design to optimize payload
space, improved machinability, increased modularity and a platform which allows for easy integration of
future payloads.
SPONSOR BACKGROUND AND NEEDS
The goal of the HyperCube project is to design an updated frame structure for the PolySat program that is
built around the next-generation communications electronics module being developed by Austin Williams,
an electrical engineering graduate student. The Cal Poly PolySat Project was founded in 1999 and serves to
introduce students to a real-world aerospace environment. PolySat’s primary task is to design and build very
small satellites (picosatellites) to “*…] perform a variety of scientific research and explore new technologies
in space” (http://polysat.calpoly.edu/). Since the next-generation electronics module is being developed to
be as small as possible, a new structure is desired to maximize this efficiency and provide a larger payload
volume.
FORMAL PROBLEM DEFINITION
The objective is to design, build and test a new structure for PolySat's new and improved frame. The frame
will be designed around newly developed communications and power boards that have been made in order
to maximize available space for science payloads. For easy integration, the design will have good access to
mount these improved circuit boards as well as any payloads. Maximizing the utilization of the allowed 6.5
mm protrusion space on each face of the cube is also a goal of this project. Furthermore, the design will be
extended to preliminary models in a 2U and 3U size configuration. This frame should maximize the available
payload volume by efficiently mounting the communications board and other needed boards (such as solar
panels and batteries) while providing expandability up to the 3U size.
Another important goal for this project is improving ease of assembly. Assembly testing and prototype
development information is described in detail in the sections below.
OBJECTIVE/SPECIFICATION DEVELOPMENT
There are many considerations to take into account when designing a satellite’s structure. Synthesizing
these considerations into a design specification allowed us to ensure that our final design fulfilled all design
objectives.
The total mass of the CubeSat cannot exceed 1.33 kg, so making the frame as lightweight as possible is a
concern. Based on previous frames and the recent increase in allowable mass, we plan to shoot for 200
grams maximum.
Since the satellites change from mission to mission, mounting the new payloads and other mission specific
boards is also a concern. We will aim to provide adjustable mounting points for mission specific payloads
and electronics. Previous frames such as those for CP5 and CP6 provide only a few fixed points to mount
payloads within the cube.
Ease of access into the internal volume of the cube with minimal disruption to other components is another
extremely important goal which must be considered in our overall design. Previous designs have been
notoriously difficult to access for repairs or rework, and our design should minimize this difficulty as much as
possible without compromising other design specifications.
This satellite must undergo a series of tests before it can be launched aboard the P-POD – an assembly test,
an integration test, and a NASA GEVS vibration test. These tests and their results are described in detail in
chapter 3.
A majority of our specifications come from the CDS, or Cubesat Design Specification. The CubeSat Design
Specification was created by Cal Poly CubeSat program members and is used by groups around the world as
a basis for the creation of standard picosatellites. We developed requirements for mass, mounting points,
and ease of integration using information from past CubeSat designs, as well as a house of quality,
presented in appendix A. These requirements are detailed in Table 1.
TABLE 1: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF CUBESAT STRUCTURE
By relating the customer requirements to engineering requirements we were able to determine the
engineering requirements that we need to focus our attention on. Also by benchmarking the customer
requirements against previous frames will let us easily determine the parts of each frame system we should
investigate further. This allows us to create targets for our quantifiable engineering requirements.
CHAPTER 2: FINAL DESIGN
CURRENT DESIGN ITERATION
Our ultimate design consists of six modular panels that fit together to form the faces of a cube. The top
panel, which has been designed specifically to hold the newly redesigned communications and power
electronics boards developed by PolySat, four identical side panels and a bottom panel that can be easily
customized to the unique requirements of each payload. Through this modular approach, this structure is
flexible enough to handle a wide variety of missions and payloads.
Internal volume has been further optimized by designing the faces of the cube to be open, which allows for
electronics or payload items to be “sandwiched” between inner and outer cube face boards.
The structure has been designed so that portions of it can be easily modified to fit specific missions. The side
rail mounting tabs can be easily moved if need be for a specific payload without affecting the structural
properties or assembleability of the frame. As well, the bottom panel can be customized to fit specific
payloads if the need arises.
FIGURE 2: DISSASEMBLED CUBE FIGURE 1: ASSEMBLED CUBE
DESIGN DETAILS
Our structure has several additional advantages over previous frame designs. The modularity of the
structure allows the panels to be customized if the mission dictates it. Most notably, the shoe will likely be
customized for each mission to properly hold the payload. This will allow the removal of a payload with
minimal hassle and disruption of other components. As well, because the electronics and structure have
been designed concurrently, the structure has an unprecedented available payload volume as is shown in
Table 2.
FULFILLMENT OF DESIGN OBJECTIVES
This ultimate design fulfills our design objectives. The table below shows how our design compares to
previous iterations and the specification verification checklist shows that we conform to the design
specification we developed at the beginning of the project.
TABLE 2: IMPROVEMENTS MATRIX
Category Previous Design Hypercube

Ease of Accessibility to Structure did not come apart, exterior Structure disassembles easily
interior components components must be removed to allowing for quick access to internal
access interior components volume from fully assembled state
Machining Difficulty Machined from two large pieces of Majority of machining done on one
aluminum, design did not optimize use face, holes must be drilled on all
of base materiel volume faces. Holes are in repeating pattern
for easy fixturing.
Cost to Machine 2500 (to tolerance) 1900 (to tolerance)
Modularity None Six parts which can be individually
swapped
Accommodates Multiple Entire structure must be redesigned for Only shoe must be customized for
Payloads with Minimal new payloads each payload, rest of structure
Changes: remains the same.
Accommodates New No Yes
Communications
Electronics:
Usable Internal Volume, 838000 mm^3 950000 mm^3
Before Comm Boards
Comm Board Stack Depth 30 mm 15mm
N e x t G e n e r a t i o n C u b e s a t P a g e | 10
SPECIFICATION VERIFICATION CHECKLIST

TABLE 3: SPECIFICATIONS VIBRATION CHECKLIST
Spec # Parameter Requirement Tolerance Risk Compliance CHECK:
100x100x113
1 Cube Size (see CDS)
mm
± 0.1 mm L AI ×
2 Protrusion 6.5 mm Max L AI ×
3 Modularity 1,2,3U N/A M AIS ×
4 Mass 200 gm Max M AI ×
5 Mounting Points 6 Min M A ×
6 Vibration Test NASA GEVS Survive M AT ×
Easier than
7 Ease of Access
Previous
N/A H AI ×
Easier than
8 Ease of Integration
Previous
N/A H AI ×
Maximum X and Y
2.2.4
dimensions (rails)
100 mm ± 0.1 mm M N/A ×
Maximum Z
2.2.5
dimension
113.5mm ± 0.1 mm M N/A ×
2.2.6 Maximum protrusion 6.5 mm Max H N/A ×
Minimum rail
2.2.9
dimension
8.5 mm Min L N/A ×
2.2.11 Rail edge radius 1 mm Min L N/A ×
2.2.12 Rail end area 6.5 x 6.5 mm Min L N/A ×
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Our final dynamic verification consists of a 3-axis NASA GEVS vibrational test with sine sweeps before and
after each axis has been tested to detect any anomalies. Our test unit was outfitted with a 1.3 kg test mass
model which was rigidly secured to our structure at eight locations (bottom panel and mid side panel) and
the structure was loaded into a Test POD (Test Picosatellite Orbiter Deployer) which represents the
conditions during deployment. Our final prototype survived this test easily and conformed to all CDS
requirements. The results of this test can be viewed in appendix E.
The results of our FEA (finite element analysis) suggest that our design will be strong enough to survive a
Minotaur launch with a worst-case factor of safety of 84. Torque specifications were also developed for all
the fasteners. Analysis indicated that the screws will be safely tightened at 4 lb-inch for all frame screws.
Details of these analyses can be viewed in appendix E.
COST ANALYSIS
The only significant cost of our project is the cost to perform the final production machining. With this as our
only cost reduction mechanism, we took great care from the outset of our project to optimize our designs
for easy machining and repeatable fixturing. Our final design uses six parts. The side panels are all identical
to reduce fixturing and programming costs, and our top and bottom panels have minor geometric changes
that allow fixtures and tooling to be used for both parts. These and other design features helped to reduce
the overall cost to machine our final prototype.
One potential area for cost reduction in the future is in our tolerances. Our relatively tight tolerances (+/-.01
mm in some locations) came at a cost premium. In future designs, it is likely that some tolerances can be
decreased. However, the CDS requires an overall tolerance of +/- .1mm, so reductions in tolerance will be
somewhat difficult to justify.
TABLE 4: COST ANALYSIS
Date Item Source Cost Approved By
Hypercube Professor P, Professor

3/5/2010 Rapid Prototype 1 No Charge
Project Team Meagher
Rapid Prototype 2 Hypercube Austin Williams,

4/10/2010 No Charge
(Objet prototype) Project Team Professor P

5/6/2010 No Charge
(Objet Prototype) Project Team Professor P

9/4/2010 No Charge
(Flight Spacing Prototype) Project Team Professor P
Machined Prototype 4800 Austin Williams,

11/3/2010 Sponsor
(6 Hats, 8 Side Panels) (1800/cube) Professor P
MATERIAL SELECTION
The material of the frame is limited by the CDS to aluminum alloys 6061 or 7075. Aluminum zinc alloy 7075
has a higher hardness rating and yield strength than 6061 making it our choice for the frame material.
However, the price of 7075 can run more than twice the price of 6061 and for this reason we have elected
to machine all parts out of 6061 Aluminum that is hard anodized post-machining.
SPECIAL FABRICATION AND ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS
All fabrication instructions are contained in our mechanical drawings. With a machined aluminum prototype
complete, no fabrication issues have been reported by the machinist nor were any detected during our
internal prototyping. An assembly manual is included in appendix G, but the current iteration is such that it
cannot be assembled incorrectly.
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
There are very few additional safety considerations that must be made for this project. Care must be taken
not to pinch skin in between the parts during assembly. Screws must be tightened to specified torques.
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS
There is very little maintenance required on the CubeSat. Bolts must be tightened and all CDS specifications
must be met before flight. Once in space the satellite is difficult to repair and must burn up after a specified
period of time, effectively negating maintenance considerations
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN VERIFICATION PLAN
To verify our design, we plan to run a series of tests to evaluate the fitness of our concept as well as to
ensure that it meets the project’s functional criterion. These tests include an assembly test, an
integration test, and a vibrations test on the final aluminum prototype.
TEST DESCRIPTIONS
ASSEMBLY TEST
An assembly test must be completed. An assembly test consists of a timed test of an untrained user
assembling our design. Subjective ease of assembly is compared to previous designs. Quality of assembly is
also evaluated (perpendicularity, parallel members, overall size tolerances, etc).
INTEGRATION TEST
An integration test must be performed. An integration test consists of the integration team testing
subjective ease of integration relative to previous designs. Opinions will be gathered from several team
members using a scoring metric and those values will be compared to previous designs.
VIBRATIONS TEST
A vibrations test profile will be to random qualification as indicated in NASA GEVS (General Environmental
Vibration Specification). The test will occur at Cal Poly facilities in building 41 per approval of the faculty and
student in charge of the aerospace department’s vibration table and equipment. An accelerometer will be
obtained from Dr. James Meagher. The CubeSat program will procure the documents to run the shaker table
and the mounting plates. As far as testing in a one unit Test POD, this will depend on the availability. Thus,
advance notice be will needed to the CubeSat program for a check on the unit. Please take note that the
integration may take two to three days.
TEST RESULTS
ASSEMBLY TEST
An assembly test was performed by asking members of the PolySat team to assemble the cube with
only the assembly manual as guidance. From four independent tests, the overall opinion of our test
assemblers was that our cube was easy to assemble and fit together intuitively.
INTEGRATION TEST
Integration was done with a representative mass model and laser-cut electronic board mockups. Integration
was performed by members of the PolySat team and their reports on the ease of integration were positive,
indicating an improvement over previous designs.
VIBRATIONS TEST
Our final vibrations test was a 3-axis NASA GEVS vibration test with sine sweeps before and after each
random vibration has been tested to detect any anomalies. Our test unit was outfitted with a 1.3 kg test
mass model which was rigidly secured to our structure at eight locations (bottom panel and mid side panel)
and the structure was loaded into a Test POD which represents the conditions during deployment. Our final
prototype survived this test easily and conformed to all CDS requirements. The detailed results of this test
can be viewed in appendix E.
CHAPTER 4: PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
MANAGEMENT PLAN
At the outset of our project, our management plan exploited the strengths of our group members. Our
initial management plan, which is shown below, has largely held true. All members of the team contributed
to prototype machining. Stephanie Wong was the liaison between our sponsor and our group, as well as the
leader on FEA modeling and vibration testing. Lucas and James did a majority of the solid modeling and
prototyping. Our management plan allowed our project to go very smoothly and facilitated communication
between our team and our sponsor.
INITIAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Because of the unique skill sets of individual members of our group, it will be useful to split up certain tasks
among group members. Certain tasks, such as design conceptualization and research phases are most
efficiently handled as a group, but other responsibilities, such as leading the weekly status meeting with our
advisor will be rotated weekly basis. Stephanie is currently taking a FEA class, so the majority of the
responsibility for generating the FEA model will fall upon her. James and Lucas have prototyping and
machining experience, and the bulk of the modeling and manufacturing will be tackled by them. When the
prototype is completed, the whole team will join together to test it on Cal Poly's vibes table. If our initial
design shows problems in the vibes table, the team will redesign the frame using the knowledge gained.
CHAPTER 5: BACKGROUND
EXISTING PRODUCTS
There have been many attempts to make the optimal CubeSat structure by different organizations such as
universities, governments and military personal. Large corporations, such as Boeing, have even released
open-source designs. There are also kits available for groups without the resources to design and build their
own structures.
SPECIFIC TECHNICAL DATA
Due to the standardization process of launching pico-satellites, there are a lot of constraints that CubeSats
must adhere to so they will both fit and launch properly from the P-POD. These specifications are provided
in the CubeSat Design Specifications (CDS). An excerpt drawing is shown in Figure 1 from the CDS labeling
the sides of the standardized CubeSat. The specific design requirements presented in the CDS include the
specific size of the overall cube as well as the minimum dimensions of the rails. In addition, the CDS
mentions the maximum protrusion from the cube dimensions. These dimensions are summarized in Table 1
below. The CDS also contains maximum mass requirements (1.33 kg), material requirements (aluminum
6061 or 7075), and other requirements such as the location of the separation springs and deployment
switches.
TABLE 5: CDS RELEVANT DIMENSIONS FOR ALL CUBESAT STRUCTURES
Dimension location Dimension Tolerance CDS reference #
Maximum X and Y 100 mm ± 0.1 mm 2.2.4

dimensions (rails)
Maximum Z dimension 113.5mm ± 0.1 mm 2.2.5
Maximum protrusion 6.5 mm Maximum 2.2.6
Minimum rail 8.5 mm Minimum 2.2.9

dimension
Rail edge radius 1 mm Minimum 2.2.11
Rail end area 6.5 x 6.5 mm Minimum 2.2.12
Rail surface contact 75% (85.1 mm) Minimum 2.2.13 ,2.2.13.1

CHAPTER 6: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT - OPTION A
The modular rail design consists of four

rails mounted to a cross braced ring or
cross bracing struts. The advantages of
this design are easy disassembly, fairly
simple manufacturing, vertical
modularity, and ease of access. This
designs lack rigidity due to the multiple
pieces associated and does not offer
many mount points. Some initial
designs keep part counts down, but
these designs have the potential to
have very high part counts, especially
FIGURE 4: OPTION A, CONCEPT
in some more flexible bracketed DESIGN, CONSISTING OF 4 RAILS
iteration. AND 2TOP AND BOTTOM
SEGMENTS.
One example of this type of design can
be seen in Figure 3. The rings which
mount to top and bottom are attached
to the rails with countersunk socket
head cap screws that mount through
the top of the rings and into the body
of the rail. The part count is low, with FIGURE 3: RING AND RAIL ITERATION
four identical rails and two rings. The
rings can be used as a carriage for electronics, allowing easy removal of the entire stack with after removing
only four bolts. As well, the exterior machined surfaces of the rings constrain the movement of the rails
regardless of initial misalignment, forcing the structure to be perfectly square at assembly and preventing
assembly errors. Disadvantages of this design include possible machining difficulties for situations where
multiple rings are needed, lack of mounting options, high total part count at a minimum of six machined
parts with eight fasteners, and poor shear strength.
CONCEPT - OPTION B
The frame is simple and consists of four ‘L’ rails and eight structural posts.
Holding the cube shape, the structure can withstand loading in different
axes.
The advantages of this concept are that it is lightweight, modular, and has
flexible mounting points. It is lightweight due to the inside material taken
away from the rail portion of the CubeSat which is advantageous for the
limit of 1.33kg in the CubeSat Design Specification. The concept is modular
due to its symmetry and can be modeled into a 1U, 2U, 3U and 1.5U
lengthwise. The major plus on this structure is that the frame has the
ability to have flexible mounting points along the rails. This is done by
FIGURE 5: OPTION B, CONCEPT attaching small brackets on the inside of the rails. The brackets provide
DESIGN, 'L' SHAPED RAILS WITH
easily adjustable mounting points for new board sizes, new clearance in
SUPPORT BARS ON TOP AND
BOTTOM between boards, and new payloads.
The disadvantages of the unit are that the frame has

multiple pieces and is tougher to integrate electric boards.
Although the frame can be lightweight, if the pieces are all
separate, the screws to hold the pieces together may
weight a substantial amount. Also the more pieces in the
structure may lose a lot of rigidity in the structure and
cause unnecessary stress and strain on the electrical
boards. In addition, finding the placements of the screws to
hold the frame together may be an issue as well as bring the
cost of manufacturing up for the different pieces and jigs FIGURE 6: TOP VIEW, CROSS SECTION, OF
to
manufacture the frame. Besides the issue of having ONE OF THE RAILS WITH A BRACKET TO
multiple pieces as the base of the frame, the assemble SHOW POSSIBLE MOUNTING POINTS.
frame may be difficult to integrate the electrical boards and
payloads if the only way to tighten a mounting screw is from the top or bottom of the CubeSat.
Overall this structure, though a seemingly simple concept, may have a lot of issues in manufacturing and
integrating. Seeing as how integrating electrical boards is a top test topic, this frame may not be the best
way to go for this new priority level.
CONCEPT - OPTION C
The panel design consists of four side panels that connect together at the corner rails to form the main body of
the CubeSat with a "hat" piece that connects to the top and bottom and provides mounting for the core
electronics stack and payload. This idea is similar to the CP-X structure but we have done away with the
diagonal supports and minimized beam cross sections. We replaced them with sturdier cross supports to
increase usable space within the cube. The advantages to this design are a low part count for both assembly
and manufacturability, as well as the ability to construct the solar board sandwiches with ample space for
batteries or other thick components. The four panels are the same piece and the "hat" fits on top and bottom of
the structure. This makes for a total part count of six for assembly and only two distinct parts for machining.
Different designs with this overall scheme are

possible. One example, in Figure 5, again
borrows from the design of CP-X. The "hat"
piece on this is designed similar to a
combination of the stand-offs and top support
piece of CP-X. The tops and bottoms of the
rails have notches to accept matching tabs that
protrude from the bottom of the "hat", which
attach together with recessed screws. This
structure provides a positive method of aligning
the hat and box structures together but restricts
the deployment switch possibilities, leaving
only 11mm for them. Another benefit of this
design is the method of assembly. Each side
panel would have the solar board sandwiches
assembled to them separately. The core
electronics would be assembled with one "hat"
and the payload on the other. The panels could
then be assembled into a box that the "hats"
would slide into and be attached or each panel
could be assembled onto the two "hats". Any FIGURE 7: OPTION C, MOST IDEAL CONCEPT DESIGN, CONTAINS
DIFFERENT VIEWS WITH BOARDS INTEGRATED TO SHOW HOW
single panel would be removable with six screws
THE 'HAT' DESIGN AND SOLAR PANELS WOULD MOUNT ON THE
after the whole cubesat is assembled. STRUCTURE
A second "hat" design is also shown (top right) in

which the rails extend the entire height of the cube allowing for other deployment switch designs. This hat
simply attaches to the top of the cross beams and provides the same mounting holes as the previous "hat".
Another advantage would be the expandability of this design. To achieve 2U or 3U sizes the panels would
only need to be extended. Additional cross bracing and mounting holes would also be required but those
could be added to the design very easily. This would also provide for 1.5U size cubes to be developed. The
"hat" pieces would be able to remain unchanged for any size.
Regardless of "hat" design, these parts would all be made of aluminum 7075 or 6061 as per the CDS. Each
piece would be machined out of a plate of aluminum; various machines could be used based on the
capabilities of the machine shop.
CONCEPT SELECTION
Option C is our top design choice and was the concept our final design was based upon. It was selected with a
Pugh diagram that compared various overall cube structures (available in Appendix B). We compared our
brainstorming ideas to the CP-6 frame in many categories including, manufacturing cost/time, number of
parts, and ease of assembly among others. The rail-panels, Hat, and inverted Hat designs were the top three
choices and all were built off a panel design as presented here with different options for attaching the core
electronics and payload.
Significant proof of concept work has been done to validate our design. A FEA model was developed, and the
results of that analysis can be seen in appendix E. Five rapid prototypes were developed, assembly and
vibrational testing was performed and our design was reviewed by the sponsor several times throughout the
project.
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
After testing the final design, the HyperCube team feels confident in its mission readiness. Missions are
already using the frame structure and several more missions have been proposed as of the time of this
writing. Minor modifications may be required for final flight units depending on the mission, but the
final design has a great deal of flexibility with regard to payload mounting. If a mission requires a
specific mounting scheme, the entire bottom panel can be can be restructured for payloads and the rail
mounting points can be moved up or down as needed.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The hypercube ream recommends that this frame design be adopted for as many future missions as
possible. As well, the team strongly recommends that our project be put into space.
REFERENCES
Acronyms, Definitions, and Abbreviations
1U, 2U, 3U, 1.5U: indicates the size of the structure, current P-POD configuration goes up to 3 units (in
a row), U=unit
A: Analysis Compliance
ASD: Acceleration Spectral Density in G^2/Hz
CAC: CubeSat Acceptance Checklist
CDS: CubeSat Design Specification, created by the CubeSat Program at Cal Poly
CP: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
FEA: Finite Element Analysis
Grms: Root-Mean-Square Acceleration
H: High risk
I: Inspection Compliance
L: Low risk
M: Medium risk
N/A: Not applicable
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA GEVS: General Environmental Verifcation Standard, upheld by NASA
P-POD: Poly-Picosatellite Orbital Deployer, developed by the CubeSat Program to deployer

picosatellites, interfaces with the launch vehicle, consists of a box and spring to eject the
picosatellites once in orbit
S:Similarities Compliance
T: Test Compliance
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A (ASSEMBLIES WITH BILL OF MATERIALS, DETAILED PART DRAWINGS)
APPENDIX B (HOUSE OF QUALITY, PUGH CHART)
APPENDIX C (DETAILED SUPPORTING ANALYSIS)
APPENDIX D (LIST OF VENDORS, CONTACT INFORMATION AND PRICING)
APPENDIX E (VENDOR SUPPLIED COMPONENT SPECIFICATIONS AND DATA SHEETS)
APPENDIX F (MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS)

QTY.
ITEM NO. PART NUMBER
3 1
1 HC1101 1
2 HC1102 1
3 HC1104 1
4 HC1103 4
NAME DATE
Dimensions are in mm TITLE:
1U Cube
DRAWN JD 9/28/10
Tolerances: .1 mm
COMMENTS:
MATERIAL
ALUM 6061-T6
SIZE
FINISH
Hard Anodized DWG. NO. 2101
SolidWorks Student License SCALE: 1:1 A REV 2 SHEET 1 OF 2
Academic Use
5 Only 4 3 2 1
Quantity Part Part Number Supplier Cost Note Spec
Full Bill of 1
1
Hat
Shoe
HC1101
HC1102
HyperCube
HyperCube
Materiels 4 Side Panel HC1103 HyperCube

Optional payload
? Cross Support HC1104 HyperCube mounting bracket
4 0-80 x 3/16 92200A054 McMasterCarr $6.70 per 10 Deployment switch screw MIL 16996-2
8 2-56 x 1/4 92200A077 McMasterCarr $3.31 per 10 Hat to Panel screws MIL 16995-2
8 2-56 x 3/8 92200A079 McMasterCarr $3.43 per 10 Panel to Panel screws MIL 16995-3
4 2-56 x 1/2 91255A081 McMasterCarr $4.18 per 25 Core mounting screws MIL 16995-4
16 2-56 x 3/16 91255A076 McMasterCarr $3.54 per 25 Sandwich panel screws MIL 51959-2
16 2-56 x 5/16 91255A078 McMasterCarr $3.30 per 25 Solar panel screws MIL 51959-4
#2 x 1/8 x 3/16 $0.20 ea =

16 spacer 92510A687 McMasterCarr $3.20 solar panel spacers
NAME DATE
1U Cube
DRAWN JD 9/28/10
Tolerances: .1 mm
COMMENTS:
MATERIAL
ALUM 6061-T6
SIZE
FINISH
SolidWorks Student License SCALE 2:3 A REV 2 SHEET 2 OF 2
Academic Use
5 Only 4 3 2 1
+0.025
8.5
- 0.075
4.5
R1
0
83.5
- 0.060
78.5
72
71.5
66.5 66.5
66 0 +0.075
5 X2 5 X2
58.5 - 0.10 0
50.5
R2.5 x5
R3.5 x7
33
25
17.5
R10X2
16 17
12
12
11.5
5
0
+0.100
2
- 0.100
0
0
2.5
5.5
8.5
14.5
88.5
+0.02
- 0.08
0
93.5
91.5
NOTE: TOLERANCE TO
COMPENSATE FOR THICKNESS NAME DATE
GAINED IN ANODIZING Dimensions are in mm TITLE:
Side Panel
(ASSUME ANODIZING THICKNESS DRAWN LW 4/20/10
Tolerances: .1 mm
OF .025 MM, 0.5 THOU) COMMENTS:
MATERIAL
ALUM 6061-T6
SIZE
FINISH
Academic Use
5 Only 4 3 2 1
TAG X LOC Y LOC SIZE A4
B2 B4 B6 B8 3x2
A1 3 14.50 2.4 THRU
4.8 2.2
2.4 THRU 14.5
A2 3 69 C4
4.8 2.2 A2 C3
A3 5.50 3 2.4 THRU
4.8 2.2
A4 5.50 80.50 2.4 THRU
4.8 2.2 C2
B1 11 2.50 1.8 THRU
2-56 UNC - 2B THRU
B2 11 81 1.8 THRU
2-56 UNC - 2B THRU
B3 15 2.50 1.8 THRU
2-56 UNC - 2B THRU C1
B4 15 81 1.8 THRU 14.5
2-56 UNC - 2B THRU Y
B5 85 2.50 1.8 THRU
A1
2-56 UNC - 2B THRU
B6 85 81 1.8 THRU B1B3
2-56 UNC - 2B THRU
B7 89 2.50 1.8 THRU
2-56 UNC - 2B THRU A3 B5 B7
B8 89 81 1.8 THRU
2-56 UNC - 2B THRU
X
C1 11.50 29 2.4 THRU ALL
4.8 2.2 2X 1.8 THRU
C2 11.50 54.50 2.4 THRU ALL 2-56 UNC - 2B THRU
4.8 2.2
C3 11.50 70.80 2.4 THRU ALL
4.8 2.2
C4 11.50 75.80 2.4 THRU ALL
4.8 2.2
NOTE: DIMENSIONS IN TABLE ABOVE IN MILIMETERS
EXCEPT FOR THREAD CALLOUTS, WHICH ARE STANDARD
THROUGH HOLES A1-B4 ARE ALL STANDARD #2 THROUGH
HOLES
NAME DATE
Side Panel
DRAWN LW 4/20/10
Tolerances: .1 mm
COMMENTS:
MATERIAL
ALUM 6061-T6
SIZE
FINISH
Academic Use
5 Only 4 3 2 1
.1 A
A
.1 A
.1 A
Note: Areas between 2 mounting tabs

is okay to be out of tollerance.
NAME DATE
Side Panel
DRAWN LW 4/20/10
Tolerances: .1 mm
COMMENTS:
MATERIAL
ALUM 6061-T6
SIZE
FINISH
Academic Use
5 Only 4 3 2 1
4
C 4X 1.8 THRU
2-56 UNC - 2B THRU 4
0
D 4 15
- 0.06
SECTION A-A
B 3
6
2.3 6.35
E 3 3
DETAIL C 6
SCALE 2 : 1
8.5
4
A 4X 2.4 THRU A
4
4
+0.07
100
- 0.13
8.5
4X 1.2 THRU
0-80 UNF - 2B THRU
R3.5
8
R4
12.5
2X 3.5 13.1
8-36 UNF - 2B 11 DETAIL B
+0.07 SCALE 2 : 1
100
- 0.13
NAME DATE
Note: Hole callouts are Dimensions are in mm TITLE:
Hat
english sizes with DRAWN JD 9/28/10
Tolerances: .1 mm
dimensions in mm COMMENTS:
MATERIAL
ALUM 6061-T6
SIZE
FINISH
SCALE: 1:1 A REV 1 SHEET 1 OF 2
5 4 3 2 1
4
4
4
0
15 3
- 0.06
DETAIL D
SCALE 2 : 1
8.5 8
R1 4.3
4.3
8.5
12.5
4
R4
R3.5
R3.5
DETAIL E
SCALE 2 : 1
NAME DATE
Hat
DRAWN
Tolerances: .1 mm
COMMENTS:
MATERIAL
ALUM 6061-T6
SIZE
FINISH
SCALE: 1:1 A REV SHEET 2 OF 2
5 4 3 2 1
4
C
4
0 4
SECTION A-A 15
- 0.06
4X 1.78 THRU 3
2-56 UNC - 6H THRU
+0.07
100 R1 X4 6
- 0.13
B DETAIL C
3 SCALE 2 : 1
3
6
8
A A 4
8.5
+0.07
100
- 0.13
8.5
12.5
4
4X 2.4 THRU
4
R3.5
R4
R3.5
DETAIL B
SCALE 2 : 1
4
Note: Each corner is same just rotated
NAME DATE
Shoe
DRAWN
Tolerances: .1 mm
COMMENTS:
MATERIAL
ALUM 6061-T6
SIZE
FINISH
SCALE: 1:1 A REV SHEET 1 OF 1
5 4 3 2 1
4X 1.8 5.8
2-56 UNC - 2B 4.4
2.5
81.5
91
R5
4X 2.4 THRU
8
5
3.5 R2 4.5
NAME DATE
Cross Support
DRAWN JD 9/28/10
Tolerances: .1 mm
COMMENTS:
MATERIAL
ALUM 6061-T6
SIZE
FINISH
SCALE: 1:1 A REV 1 SHEET 1 OF 1
5 4 3 2 1
Title: HyperCube Legend
Author: James Dolengewicz, Lucas Whipple, Stephanie Wong Θ Strong Relationship 9
Date: 1/27/2010 Ο Moderate Relationship 3
Notes: ▲ Weak Relationship 1
┼┼ Strong Positive Correlation
┼ Positive Correlation
▬ Negative Correlation
▼ Strong Negative Correlation

┼ ▼ Objective Is To Minimize
▬ ▼ ▲ Objective Is To Maximize
┼ ┼┼ ▬ x Objective Is To Hit Target
┼┼ ┼ ▬
┼ ▬ ▬
┼ ┼ ┼
┼ ▬ ┼ ┼ ▼
Column # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Direction of Improvement: Competitive Analysis
Minimize (▼), Maximize (▲), or Target (x) (0=Worst, 5=Best)
Our Company CP-6 Frame

Quality Characteristics
Design around new electronics board

(a.k.a. "Functional
Minimal stucturre to support loading

Requirements" or
ship Value in Row
ic cross members
"Hows")
mbly (for access)

CP-5 Frame CPX
unt Points
Board-integral sstructure
ortance
Parts
ght
2-D Machined P
Relative Weigh
Mission-specific
Adjustable Mou
Max Relations
Easy disassem
Weight / Impo
Our Company
Modular Rails
CP-6 Frame
CP-5 Frame
Demanded Quality
(a.k.a. "Customer
Row #
Requirements" or
CPX
"Whats") 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 9 15.0 15.0
Ease of Access Ο Ο Θ 5 4 2 0
2 9 15.0 15.0
Volume Maximization Θ ▲ Θ Θ Ο 5 3 3 3
3 9 15.0 15.0
Exploitataion of new electrical hardware Ο Θ 5 0 0 0
4 9 15.0 15.0
Flexable mount points Θ Θ Ο 5 0 0 3
5 9 10.0 10.0
Outward expansion into PPOD ▲ Θ 5 1 1 3
6 9 8.0 8.0
Ease of production Θ Θ 3 4 4 1
7 9 8.0 8.0
Low cost Θ Θ 3 3 4 2
8 9 8.0 8.0
1-2-3 u modularity Θ Θ 5 0 0 5
9 9 4.0 4.0
low mass Θ Θ 3 3 4 2
10 9 2.0 2.0
1/2-1-1/2 u modularity Θ Θ 3 0 0 0
200 grams
4 Sections
6+ Points
1,2,3U
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Target or Limit Value
Difficulty
3 7 5 5 7 2 4 6
(0=Easy to Accomplish, 10=Extremely Difficult)
Max Relationship Value in Column 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Weight / Importance 414.0 226.0 225.0 159.0 315.0 270.0 81.0 135.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 piece 2 halfs clamshell tabbed rail L rail profiled notched Rail Rail‐panels Hat inverted Hat
1 ‐ s D ‐ s ‐ ‐ + + +
2 + s A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ s ‐ ‐
3 ‐ ‐ T s s ‐ + ‐ + +
4 s s U ‐ s ‐ + + ‐ +
5 + s M s + + + + + +
6 ‐ ‐ ‐ + + s s ‐ +
7 + s s ‐ s s + s s
8 ‐ s s + + s + + +
9 + s D ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ + + +
10 s s A + + + + + + +
Σ+ 4 8 T 5 4 4 4 7 6 8
Σ‐ 4 2 U 1 3 5 3 1 2 1
Σs 2 0 M 4 3 1 3 2 1 1
1 Manufacturing cost/time
2 Number of parts
3 Ease of assembly
Ease of assembly
4 Ease of attaching solar panel stacks
5 Large payload space
6 Ease of using a large electronics stack
7 Lightweight
8 Able to be modular
9 Stiffness/strength
10 Makes use of avalible stickout space
Finite Element Analysis on the Next Generation
PolySat Structure
Stephanie Wong
Member of the CubeSat Program and HyperCube Senior Project Team
Analysis done for the HyperCube Senior Project Team
Aided by the Applied Finite Element Analysis Class and Dr. James Meagher
Winter 2010 at Cal Poly
ABSTRACT
The concept of a small satellite that can fit in ones hand

has brought about a tremendous amount of interest and
support due to the increase in accessibility of secondary
payloads to hitch a ride to space. The HyperCube
senior project team has been presented with
constructing Cal Poly’s next generation satellite.
Currently there are three Cal Poly, student built,
satellites orbiting the Earth.
The purpose of this finite element analysis is to verify

that the current HyperCube design can withstand launch
loads, particularly the vibration. Analyzing the buckling
and deflection values of the structure, the results of the
critical buckling load is at a factor of safety of 44, not Figure 1: CubeSat Design Specification drawing that
including the factor of safety of 2.5 applied to the shows one example of the standardization process
calculated load. The deflection is also well within range (Reference 2)
of less than 0.1 millimeter. With a structure this rigid,
how can anything go wrong? Presented with the HyperCube’s Senior Project of
analyzing Cal Poly’s next generation picosatellite
INTRODUCTION structure, the goal is to ensure that the structure will not
fail during worst case launch environments, in this case
Picosatellites have become a racing phenomenon the random vibration requirements. Below is the random
majorly due to the art of standardization. Contained in a vibration profile according to NASA GEVS (Reference 3)
ten centimeter cube is all the components necessary for for random qualification.
a functional satellite. These components include the
structure, communications boards, power boards and Table 1: Random Qualification Vibration profile
solar panels. Weighing roughing one kilogram, one may
Frequency [Hz] ASD [G2/Hz]
wonder what on Earth can anyone do in that small of a
space. With the advancements in technology in
miniaturizing components for computers and cell 20 0.026
phones, these tiny satellites have become a power
platform for scientifically rich experiments. From biology 80 0.160
experiments to revolutionary propulsion systems that
require no fuel, these small structures have been 500 0.160
harboring great opportunities which are a cheaper
alternative to multimillion dollar satellites. The idea 2000 0.026
started in 1999 with Dr. Jordi Puig-Suari (Cal Poly
Aerospace Department professor) and Dr. Bob Twiggs
(former Stanford University professor) who thought of
the idea to give students an opportunity to develop and Random vibrations simulate launch environments and
launch satellites rapidly at a low cost. This resulted in a depending on the launch vehicle and placement of the
new class of picosatellites – called CubeSats – with the satellites, the ride can either be smooth or simply
main propose of having students heavily involved in the unbearable. Figure 2 shows the typical vibration profile
complete life cycle of a space mission. for random qualification that the structure needs to
survive.
assembly and then the loads will be analyzed based on
Vibration Profile for Random Qualification simple geometric shapes that are derived from the
1.0000
model. The goal is to simulate the actual structure in a
simplified matter using basic shapes. That way the
simplified model will be able to mesh quickly and run the
0.1000 analysis faster, rather than having the software deal with
the complex geometries and large amounts of elements
ASD [G2/Hz]
due to multiple uneven surfaces and holes.

0.0100
0.0010
10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 2: Random Qualification vibration profile with

respect to acceleration spectrum density and frequency
Although most primary satellites on a launch vehicle is

mounted directly onto the rocket, the picosatellite
requires a deployment system, developed by Cal Poly Figure 4: Side Panel Figure 5: Hat Part CAD
students, called the Poly-Picosatellite Orbital Deployer CAD model model
(P-POD). The P-POD is a hollow box, consisting of a
spring and door similar to that of a “Jack-in-a-Box” to MODEL DEVELOPMENT – Made up of two main
deploy the picosatellite. Once the launch vehicle sends components, the actual structure contains four Side
an electrical pulse to the door actuation device, the door Panels and two Hat parts. The Side Panels create the
will open and the spring will deploy the picosatellites out frame work of the “walls” of the satellite. Solar panels
of the P-POD. With the ability to hold three picosatellites, and electronic boards will mount onto this part which is
the worst case scenario for the loading onto the satellite why the structure needs to be rigid enough to ensure
structure would be if the P-POD is upright during launch that the boards do not break. In addition, there are two
and the Cal Poly structure is located at the bottom of the Hat parts that sandwich the Side Panel assembly
other two picosatellites. together. One of the Hat parts will also hold a stack of
electronic boards that will make up the brains of this
satellite. The stack will also be wired to the solar panels
and boards that are connected to the Side Panels. For
this phase of the project, the electronic boards and solar
panels will be neglected for two main reasons: the
boards is not a structural component of the system and
should not be considered as such, and the exact
In order to characterize the structure, the dynamic placement of the boards is still yet to be determined.
environmental loads were converted into a
representative static load in order to do a static load
analysis in the finite element analysis program, W. Lan’s
thesis will be used to calculate the maximum
Support
acceleration (G’s) from the launch vehicle environment
Strut
(Appendix A and Reference 1). The structure’s integrity
will go through buckling analysis and the worst case
applied loads analysis to find critical loads and
deflection. Hat
SIMPLIFIED
STRUCTURE Rail
Due to the
complexities of the Figure 6: Simplified structure indicating main geometries
picosatellite
structure, various Since the assembly mated and preloaded together in
steps are taken to designated slots and surfaces, the assembly will be
develop a simplified considered as one part for simplicity’s sake. Once put
model. First the together, the structure begins to look similar to that of
actual structure will four rails and eight support struts. The four square
be analyzed as an Side Panel columns will be called the rails since they are the points
Figure 3: Actual structure
assembly
that the satellite will interface with the P-POD. Thus the Appendix A for calculations. This load comes from the
support struts will just hold the rails parallel to each worse case random vibration loads seen by the Minotaur
other. In addition, to make the model FEA friendly, the I launch vehicle. This force will be distributed between
rails and supports will morph into one rigid structure to the four top surfaces and placed as a pressure
avoid the complications of mating and part interaction. amounting to 11 MPa on each top square surface. The
boundary condition on the structure will be fixed at the
Besides uniting the parts as four bottom surfaces which will simulate rigid
one, the electronic board compression in the P-POD.
attachment points (Figure 7)
will be cut extruded around the The structure will be analyzed for buckling conditions,
rail since they are not load displacement, stress, and strain during worse case
supporting features. The holes applied loads.
in the model will also be filled
for smooth surfaces. Buckling - The critical forces are found using the
buckling step in the linear perturbation option in
MESH DEVELOPMENT – The ABAQUS. To find the critical forces on the different
Figure 7: Close-up mesh element sizes for this models, the boundary conditions remain fixed at the
of an attachment structure is tetrahedral since the bottom and a one unit total load is applied to the top.
point for an assembly is not a simple Since the cross-sectional areas of the model have
electrical board
geometric part. However, the square pressure points, the one unit total load is placed
tetrahedral elements are small on one of the corner nodes because there is not a center
enough to get into the tight spaces between the non- node. Even though there may be discrepancies on the
uniform features. For a more precise mesh, hexagonal placement of the force load, this corner load presented a
elements could have been made on each individual worse case load placement rather than placed in the
surface on the structure. That is if the surfaces are center of the square cross-sectional area.
partitioned around the joining of the rails and support
members. In addition to the tetrahedral sizes, the
meshes are linear and will evaluate 3D stress without
the help of reduced integration, incompatibility mode and
any other options the ‘Tet’ menu offers. The total count
is 15 thousand elements at 3.5 millimeters which has
about 90 thousand degrees of freedom. Below is a table
showing the different mesh verifications ABAQUS offers.
Table 2: Mesh Quality Criteria
Element Failure Criteria Values
Worse Shape Factor 0.198193
Worse Min Angle 19.58 Figure 8: Close-up and entire view of actual structure
subjected to Buckling loads
Worse Max Angle 118.49
Besides the force placement, there is one error that the
Worse Aspect Ratio 3.09 program sees is when the seeding gets smaller and
smaller. When the seeds get too small, ABAQUS
Worse Geometric Deviation Factor 2.21E-14 decides to aborts the analysis job due to too many
iterations to get the Eigen value. When this occurs, the
Shortest Edge 1.5 seeding in mesh elements are reduced. However this
error is not consistent with the original prediction of small
seeding because the large seeding meshes also have
Longest Edge 6.19
the same problem. To fix this problem, the seeding is
changed to the normal sized seeds experienced with this
Smallest Time Increment 56.5
size of an object.
In any case, the buckling value found will help find the
critical forces the structure will be able to see without
ANALYSIS – Since the picosatellites are compressed in buckling. Thus, the converged value is 140 thousand
the P-POD, the forces are acting mainly on the rail Newtons. This value will help find the factor of safety
portions of the structure. A design factor of safety of 2.5 between the critical forces and the actual forces so we
will be used on the applied forces which will give the can be safe to say that the structure will not break.
maximum force on the structure to be about 3180 N, see
Applied Loads – In addition to the critical loads, the and then a cutoff element where the elements start to
predicted characteristics of the structure is useful to steady out.
know in case the structure is compromised in other
places than the rails. ABAQUS’s static/general
command is used to find displacement, stress and strain
when the model is under an applied load. A pressure of Mesh Convergence Study for Deflection
11 MPa is placed on each of the four top surfaces and Magnitude on the Simplified Model
the bottom four surfaces are fixed. Below is the Table of 1.80E‐02
the desired values with the applied force are at a factor
Deflection [mm]
1.75E‐02
of safety of 2.5. 1.70E‐02
1.65E‐02
Table 3: Summary of the displacement, stress and strain
undergoing applied loads that have a factor of safety of 1.60E‐02
2.5 1.55E‐02
1.50E‐02
Desired Variables FEA Values
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Displacement (Magnitude) 1.76E‐02 mm Elements [#]
Stress (Maximum Principal) 6.19 MPa Figure 10: Converged value of deflection over several
element size changes
Strain (Maximum Principal) 81.6 μ This study goes to show that different variables may not
have the same converging point. Thus, multiple
convergence studies need to be made so that the largest
element number may be chosen as the converged
MESH CONVERGENCE – In order to ensure that the model for all variables. For these reasons, the stress
model is converged, the element sizes are changed until and strain readings will not be considered since they do
the values remain constant. ABAQUS can evaluate not converge.
multiple elements but the less it has to evaluate, the
faster the program can run. Thus, it is helpful to proceed
The limitations of the seeding, for both the buckling and
with a mesh convergence study to see the number of
deflection values, are the amount of iterations the
elements that is necessary to get an acceptable reading.
software has to process. The model seeding at 30 and 3
millimeters is unable to process due to the Eigen value
To find the buckling value, the graph below indicates that iterations, as told by the command window in ABAQUS.
the mesh converged at around 10 thousand elements.
The model is meshed various times by changing the
Overall the model underwent analysis in about a minute
seed sizes. After numerous iterations, the outcome
at 3.5 millimeter seeds. Compared to the actual
revealed a consistent number.
structure’s FEA, the simplified model had a much shorter
run time.
Mesh Convergence Study for Critical
Buckling Loads on the Simplified Model RESULTS
1000000 Although the results in this section may seem all too
Buckling Load [N]
800000 easy to believe, it must be remembered that the finite

600000 element analysis just scratches the surface of the layers
of analyzing imperfect and complex structures.
400000
200000 BUCKLING – Starting with the rail component of the
0 structure, one can easily analyze the critical force in a
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 square column (Appendix A). Multiplying the rail force
Elements [#] by four, since there are four rails on a structure, the
critical force comes out to be 24 thousand Newtons.
Comparing that to the buckling finite element results, the
Figure 9: Buckling load at different element sizes which
converges over larger elements buckling in the simplified structure will occur at 140
thousand Newtons. These two and very different
As for the deflection, the magnitude converges to 1.76E- calculations illustrate the importance of the supporting
2 millimeters at around 15 thousand elements. More struts in the assembly, and that they assist the rails in
testing has gone into trying additional element but to no buckling quit effectively.
avail. The small seeding is too much for the software to
iterate. However, the graphs both show a steep slope According to the design load which is 3179 Newtons,
and already at a factor of safety of 2.5, the addition
factor of safety is a huge 44 compared to the simplified electronic boards during their journey into space though
structure! This value is well above the safety factors the true test will be during a vibration test.
needed to ensure that the structure will not buckle under
the pressure. The simplified model is also compared to The stress and strain were going to also be evaluated
a finite element model of the actual structure that was except the mesh convergence values were oscillating.
done as a case study to find the differences between the Meshing the parts with different seeding to its full range,
two (Appendix B). In the plot below, both structures look the simplified model seems to go on a roller coaster ride
like they convergence at the same value due to the whereas the actual structure seems to decide which way
scaling. The simplified structure buckles at 140 whereas to go about mid way.
the actual buckles at 107 thousand Newtons. Even
though the simplified model should be enveloping the
actual model for worst case situations, the addition factor Mesh Convergence Study for Maximum
of safety to the 2.5 already in place, is 34. So the Principal Stresses
buckling issue is really not an issue at all. 20
Actual
Stress [MPa]
15 Structure
Mesh Convergence Study for Critical
Buckling Loads Simplified
10 Structure
1.E+06
Buckling Load [N]
8.E+05 Actual
Structure 5
6.E+05
Simplified 0 50000 100000
4.E+05 Elements [#]
Structure
2.E+05
0.E+00 Figure 13: Maximum principal stresses in both actual and
simplified structures
0 20000 40000 60000
Elements [#]
Mesh Convergence Study for Maximum
Figure 11: Mesh convergence comparison of the actual Principal Strains
structure and simplified structure analyzed
350 Actual
Looking over Figure 11 again, the element cutoff for both 300 Structure
structures is very different. This fact just showcases that 250
Strain [μ ]
a simplified structure uses less elements to converge to 200 Simplified

a steady value. 150 Structure
100
APPLIED FORCES – Applying the projected load onto 50
the simplified and actual structure, the displacement 0
values are the only values that are of interest, Table 4.
0 50000 100000
The displacement will indicate if the structure will deflect Elements [#]
during harsh loads.
Figure 14: Mesh convergence for the maximum principal
Table 4: Displacement values from the finite element
strains in the actual and simplified structures
analysis of both the actual and simplified structure
Overall the stress and strain
Desired FEA Values FEA Values Percent
values are not critical to
Variables of the Actual of the Error
document expect if there is
Structure Simplified
a lower factor of safety in
Structure
buckling. The maximum
stress and strain are also
Displacement 2.11E‐2 mm 1.76E‐2 mm 16.6% good indicators visually to
input more rigidity or to
alleviate stress
concentrations on the
The displacement of the actual and simplified structure structure like where the rail
differs at about 16.6%, assuming that the actual and support struts meet.
structure is the true value. Considering that the
deflection is much less than one millimeter, the percent
difference will not be an issue, though it is understood
that the simplified structure should be more conservative Figure 12: Close-up
than the actual one. These values justify the life of the of the rail in stress
on the actual
structure
survive fairly well on its own. Buckling is not an issue
and once it is, other components are sure to break
before that time. Deflection is minimal and thus
deformation is too since the yield strength is high for
Alumimum 7075. These are the two main issues that
are caused by compression and because the
picosatellite goes through compress only, the likely hood
of the structure breaking is very unlikely.
Besides verifying the structure’s integrity, the finite

element model will be useful engineering tools since the
PolySat team plans to use this structure for muilple
future missions. Thus, the simplified structure will
Figure 15: Close-up of the strain analysis on the rail of the provide for easy manipulation if mission loads are
simplified structure changed. Given that the load has a factor of safety of
2.5, the structure will be very rigid.
DISCUSSION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As far as discrepancies go on the test data, the only
ones that are concerning is the stress and strain values
Special acknowledgments to HyperCube team who
since the actual and simplified model values did not
worked on the design of the structure. Thanks to Dr.
match. Given that the non-converged data was thrown
Meagher for helping the confused (aka the writer) and
out in the results section, this discrepancy did too. Other
listening patiently to CubeSat and PolySat presentations
than that, the results matched the requirements of
over and over. Another thanks to the CubeSat and
random qualification vibration.
PolySat teams for being open to ideas and once in a
while letting me think outside the box. Also thank you
Looking over the buckling results, it is pleasantly
Riki for teaching me a bit of NX Nastran and the
surprising how large the factor of safety is on the
confusion you face with that program daily.
simplified structure. It has a factor of safety of 44 with
an applied load to have a 2.5 factor of safety built in.
Although the simplified model did not envelop the worst REFERENCES
case scenarios, the factor of safety is so high that the
applied loading does not matter unless it is near critical 1. Lan, Wenschel. Redesign and Modal Analysis of the
loading. This is assuming that the finite element model Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployer. Thesis. San Luis
on the actual structure is correct and converged Obispo, Calif. : California Polytechnic State
properly. In any case, it seems crazy that this little University, 2008. Print.
frame can handle so much during harsh vibrations. 2. CubeSat Acceptance Checklist*
However, it will have to not only hold itself together, but 3. Simmons, Ryan. "FEMCI Book - Calculating Grms."
hold the other subsystems attached to its frame. FEMCI - Finite Element Modeling Continuous
Improvement at NASA Goddard Space Flight
The issues with the structure is going to be in the Center. Web. 01 Mar. 2010.
fastener placements and material around the fasteners <http://femci.gsfc.nasa.gov/random/randomgrms.ht
seeing as the structure will be made of Aluminum 7075 ml>.
and the screws will be stainless steel. The simplified *Documentation only available through the CubeSat
structure eliminated the screws and mating pieces, but
these calculations can easily be done using simple bolt program at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
and screw calculations done in Intermediate design
classes at Cal Poly.
CONTACT
A recommendation is that the mass could be cut down
Stephanie Wong is an undergraduate mechanical
since it is known that the weight of the picosatellite is
engineer at Cal Poly and is part of the CubeSat program
limited to 1 or 1.33 kilograms (depending on the mission)
where she spends most of her time working on missions
according to the CubeSat Design Specfication. Also to
regarding the P-POD.
avoid strain and stress between the rail and support
struts, fillets will be good to use to avoid possible nicks.
sdwong@calpoly.edu
CONCLUSION
Overall, the goal of the project is to analyze a simplified

model of the actual structure to ensure it will not buckle,
deform or break. Given a factor of safety of 44 on top of
a factor of safety of 2.5, the structure will be able to
DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS analyzes the structure characteristics using numeric
methods
Here are the definitions and explanations of terms
Grms: Root-Mean-Square Acceleration, Reference 3,
regarded in the report. If more information is desired, average of the square acceleration over time at a certain
you can contact the author via email. Goggle is pretty frequency, creates a magnitude from the range of
acceleration I order to characterize the overall vibration
useful too. profile
ASD: Acceleration Spectral Density in G2/Hz
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Cal Poly: California Polytechnic State University, San
Luis Obispo NASA GEVS: General Environmental Verification
Standard, upheld by NASA
CDS: CubeSat Design Specification created by the
CubeSat Program at Cal Poly P-POD: Poly-Picosatellite Orbital Deployer, developed
by the CubeSat Program to deploy picosatellites,
CubeSat: Cube Satellites made from the CubeSat interfaces with the launch vehicle, consists of a box and
Design Specifcation spring to eject the picosatellites once in orbit
FEA: Finite Element Analysis, computer aided numerical

analyzer that takes a part(s) alone or in a system and
APPENDIX A- HAND CALCULATIONS
Design Load Factor Calculation (W. Lan, Reference 1)
From NASA GEVS

N i = S i ± Li + Ri ;
2 2
N i = combined load factor

S i = steady-state load factor
Li = low frequency dynamic load factor
Ri = high frequency random vibration factor
Worst-case (so far) is Minotaur I (numbers from LV Users guide):

S longitudinal = 7- 13g
S latitudinal = ±3.3g
Li = 5g (ICD)
Ri = 14.1g (from NASA GEVS)
N x = N y = ±3.3 g ± 5.0 g 2 + 14.1g 2 = ±18.26 g
N z = 13g ± 5.0 g 2 + 14.1g 2 = 1.96 g , 27.96 g
N = N x + N y + N z = 2(18.26 g ) 2 + 27.96 g 2 = 38.06 g
2 2 2
Design Force Calculation (on the picosatellite in the worst case position where the P-POD is vertical and the
picosatellite in question is at the bottom) - Stephanie calculations
Fapplied = Fsatellites + Fsprings ;
where Fsprings includes the force of the main spring and spring plungers from the P-POD
Fsatellites = 9.8(mass)(# _ of _ Satellites )( N ) = 9.81(1.33 kg)(2)(38.06 g) = 995 N
Fmain spring = 44.5 N (for a nominal CubeSat exit velocity of 1.8 m/s)
Fspring plunger = 57.8 N (max force from supplier specification)
Fapplied = 995 N + 44.5 N + 4(57.8 N ) = 1271.4 N
F.S. = 2.5
Fdesign = 2.5(1271.4 N ) = 3178.6 N (max design load on the entire structure including the factor of safety of 2.5)
3178.6 N
Fdesign _ load _ on _ rail = = 794.6 N (load on each of the four rails)
4
794.6 N
Fdesign _ pressure _ on _ rail = ≈ 11MPa (pressure on the rails, taking into account
(8.5E − 3m )2 the cross-sectional area of the rails)
Critical Buckling Load
π EI
L
DEFINE TERMS
= Critical buckling force
E= Modulus of Elasticity for Al 7075
I= Moment of Inertia, simple square column
L =Effective length for a fixed and free situation
DEFINE TERMS
E= 71.7 GPa (Note: This value is the average of tension and compression, compression modulus is 2% greater than
tension modulus) Thus, E=72.417 GPa
0.0085 0.0085
4.35 10
12 12
L 2 Length 2 .1135m 0.227m
. E . E
6033.7N (Critical force for one rail to buckle)
.
APPENDIX B- ACTUAL STRUCTURE ANALYSIS
Before getting the actual structure into ABAQUS, the parts need to be imported from Solidworks. Solidworks is a
modeling program that can create 3D structures which is the program the HyperCube team uses for their picosatellite
model. The assembly of parts is saved as a STEP file and imported into ABAQUS. The parts are then constrained to
each other using the Tie command.
Mesh Development - The actual structure contains tetrahedral elements

due to the complexity of the surfaces. There are more than 96 thousand
elements, at seed size of 2 millimeters, due to the multiple surfaces of
the Side Panels and Hat parts. Since all the elements can move in any
direction except the limitation due to the boundary conditions and loads
there are more than 576 thousand degrees of freedom. The mesh
needs to have small seeding due to the complex geometry of the part,
see Figures 16 and 17.
Displacement
Table 5: Variables of the actual structure at different seed sizes
Deflection Stress Max Strain Max

Elements Seeds Magnitude Principal Principal Figure 16:
[#] [mm] [mm] [MPa] [μ ] Tetrahedral
Figure 17: elements with
5552 50 1.49E‐02 15.4 320 Tetrahedral 3.15 millimeter
6083 30 1.55E‐02 16.2 270 elements with 5 seeds
7041 20 1.60E‐02 16.7 252 millimeter mesh
16659 10 1.78E‐02 14.9 214
21455 5 1.92E‐02 15.4 236
59180 2.5 2.07E‐02 14.8 256
96367 2 2.11E‐02 15.0 278
Figure 18: Displacement Magnitude of the actual structure with a 3.15 millimeter seed mesh
Buckling
Table 6: Elements, seed size and Eigen values show the
different iterations in convergence
Elements [#] Seed [mm] Eigen value [N]

6083 30 9.20E+05
7041 20 6.03E+05
16659 10 2.09E+05
21455 5 1.37E+05
59180 2.5 1.07E+05
Figure 19: Pressure loads on the actual structure
with fixed boundary condition at the bottom
Frequency
Table 7: Various mode frequencies using the converging mesh method, the larger elements have the converged values
Elements Seeds Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5

580 20 1766 1802 2506 2877 5881
1179 10 1278 1309 1623 1952 3965
2083 7 1067 1074 1399 1623 3100
4224 5 862 864 1122 1372 2749
8457 4 827 829 1060 1238 2296
15043 3.5 791 793 1012 1172 2229
17166 3.15 777 779 987 1067 1919
Cal Poly Structures & Composites Lab
Swept Sine Test Report
SETUP NAME: Sine Sweep with Triaxial
RUN NAME: Hypercube Post X
USER/PROJECT FOLDER: Class Tests
SAVE NUMBER: 1
STATUS INFORMATION
TEST EVENT TIME: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 at 06:27:56 PM
TEST STATUS: FINISHED
TEST MODE: AUTO
TOTAL TIME ELAPSED (HH:MM:SS): 0:1:40
AUTO TIME ELAPSED (HH:MM:SS): 0:1:30
SWEEP #: 1
FREQUENCY: 2000.00 Hz
REFERENCE: 1.00 g pk
CONTROL ACCELERATION: 1.00 g pk
CONTROL VELOCITY: 0.03 in/s pk
CONTROL DISPLACEMENT: 0.00 mil pp
Page 1 of 2
CONTROL PARAMETERS
CONTROL CHANNEL(S): 1
CONTROL TYPE: SINGLE
SWEEP TIME: 1 min, 30 sec
SWEEP TYPE: LOG
STARTING SWEEP DIRECTION: UP
STARTING FREQUENCY: 10.00 Hz
LOWER FREQUENCY: 10.00 Hz
UPPER FREQUENCY: 2000.00 Hz
SERVO SPEED: 1K dB/s
INPUT CHANNEL PARAMETERS

Chan Sensitivity Coupling Max.Range
(#) (mV/g) (AC/DC) (g pk)
1 9.74 AC 100.00
2 103.70 AC 80.00
3 105.20 AC 80.00
4 102.90 AC 80.00
INPUT CHANNEL DESCRIPTION

Chan # Description
1 Control
2 Triaxial X
3 Triaxial Y
4 Triaxial Z
Page 2 of 2
Random Test Report
SETUP NAME: NASA GEVS wtih Triaxial
RUN NAME: Hypercube Random X
SAVE NUMBER: 1
STATUS INFORMATION
TEST MODE: AUTO
TEST LEVEL: 0.0 dB
REFERENCE: 14.14 g rms
CONTROL: 14.16 g rms
CONTROL PARAMETERS
Page 1 of 2
FREQUENCY RANGE: 2500 Hz
NUMBER OF PSD LINES: 500
FREQUENCY RESOLUTION: 5.000 Hz
DOF: 150
SIGMA DRIVE LIMITING: 3.00

(#) (mV/g) (AC/DC) (g rms)
1 9.74 AC 50.00
2 103.70 AC 19.00
3 105.20 AC 19.00
4 102.90 AC 19.00

Chan # Description
1 Control
2 Triaxial X
3 Triaxial Y
4 Triaxial Z
Page 2 of 2
RUN NAME: Hypercube Pre X
SAVE NUMBER: 1
STATUS INFORMATION
TEST MODE: AUTO
SWEEP #: 1
Page 1 of 2
CONTROL PARAMETERS
SWEEP TYPE: LOG

1 9.74 AC 100.00
2 103.70 AC 80.00
3 105.20 AC 80.00
4 102.90 AC 80.00

Chan # Description
1 Control
2 Triaxial X
3 Triaxial Y
4 Triaxial Z
Page 2 of 2
RUN NAME: Hypercube Pre Y
SAVE NUMBER: 1
STATUS INFORMATION
TEST MODE: AUTO
SWEEP #: 1
Page 1 of 2
CONTROL PARAMETERS
SWEEP TYPE: LOG

1 9.74 AC 100.00
2 103.70 AC 80.00
3 105.20 AC 80.00
4 102.90 AC 80.00

Chan # Description
1 Control
2 Triaxial X
3 Triaxial Y
4 Triaxial Z
Page 2 of 2
Random Test Report
RUN NAME: Hypercube Random Y
SAVE NUMBER: 1
STATUS INFORMATION
TEST MODE: AUTO
TEST LEVEL: 0.0 dB
CONTROL PARAMETERS
Page 1 of 2
DOF: 150

1 9.74 AC 50.00
2 103.70 AC 19.00
3 105.20 AC 19.00
4 102.90 AC 19.00

Chan # Description
1 Control
2 Triaxial X
3 Triaxial Y
4 Triaxial Z
Page 2 of 2
RUN NAME: Hypercube Post Y
SAVE NUMBER: 1
STATUS INFORMATION
TEST MODE: AUTO
SWEEP #: 1
Page 1 of 2
CONTROL PARAMETERS
SWEEP TYPE: LOG

1 9.74 AC 100.00
2 103.70 AC 80.00
3 105.20 AC 80.00
4 102.90 AC 80.00

Chan # Description
1 Control
2 Triaxial X
3 Triaxial Y
4 Triaxial Z
Page 2 of 2
RUN NAME: Hypercube Pre Z
SAVE NUMBER: 1
STATUS INFORMATION
TEST MODE: AUTO
SWEEP #: 1
Page 1 of 2
CONTROL PARAMETERS
SWEEP TYPE: LOG

1 9.74 AC 100.00
2 103.70 AC 80.00
3 105.20 AC 80.00
4 102.90 AC 80.00

Chan # Description
1 Control
2 Triaxial X
3 Triaxial Y
4 Triaxial Z
Page 2 of 2
Random Test Report
RUN NAME: Hypercube Random Z
SAVE NUMBER: 1
STATUS INFORMATION
TEST MODE: AUTO
TEST LEVEL: 0.0 dB
CONTROL PARAMETERS
Page 1 of 2
DOF: 150

1 9.74 AC 50.00
2 103.70 AC 19.00
3 105.20 AC 19.00
4 102.90 AC 19.00

Chan # Description
1 Control
2 Triaxial X
3 Triaxial Y
4 Triaxial Z
Page 2 of 2
RUN NAME: Hypercube Post Z
SAVE NUMBER: 1
STATUS INFORMATION
TEST MODE: AUTO
SWEEP #: 1
Page 1 of 2
CONTROL PARAMETERS
SWEEP TYPE: LOG

1 9.74 AC 100.00
2 103.70 AC 80.00
3 105.20 AC 80.00
4 102.90 AC 80.00

Chan # Description
1 Control
2 Triaxial X
3 Triaxial Y
4 Triaxial Z
Page 2 of 2
Hypercube Assembly Manual
Purpose and Scope of document
This document is intended to aid in the assembly of the Hypercube frame structure. This guide does not
consider the integration of solar panels, communications boards, or other payloads. Refer to the
documentation provided for the specific payload or module for integration instructions.
Step 1: Verification of Parts

Verify that all parts listed in the parts list below are present.
Part Part
Quantity Supplier Location Used Spec
Description Number
1 Top Panel HC1101 HyperCube
1 Bottom Panel HC1102 HyperCube
4 Side Panel HC1103 HyperCube
8 2-56 x 1/4 92200A077 McMasterCarr Hat to Panel screws MIL 16995-2
Panel to Panel
8 2-56 x 3/8 92200A079 McMasterCarr MIL 16995-3
screws
Bottom Panel (1)
Top Panel (1)
Side Panel (4)

Step 2: Prepare the Bottom Panel for assembly
Place the bottom panel on a clean work surface. Verify that the bottom panel is free of damage and that
all threaded holes are unobstructed.
Step 3: Begin Assembly

Begin by placing one side panel on the bottom shoe as shown in the picture below. Prepare one 2-56 x
¼” screw by applying potting compound to its tip. Loosely install one 2-56 x ¼ screw in the location
shown below
Step 4: Continue Assembly

Install a second side panel in the manner shown below, repeating the procedure in step 3. Prepare two
2-56 x 3/8” screws for assembly by applying potting compound to their tips. Loosely install these screws
in the locations shown below.
Step 5: Finish Side Panel Assembly
Repeat steps 4 and 5 for the remaining two side panels.
Step 7: Top Panel Installation

Insert the hat into the structure in the manner shown below. Prepare four 2-56 x ¼” screw by applying
potting compound to their tips. Install these screws into the locations shown below.
Step 8: Torque Fasteners

Torque all fasteners to 4 inch-lbs.

The Next Generation CubeSat - A Modular and Adaptable CubeSat Fram

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Next Generation CubeSat - A Modular and Adaptable CubeSat Fram

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A MODULAR AND ADAPTABLE CUBESAT FRAME DESIGN

Dr. Jordi Puig-Suari Austin Williams

Aerospace Department Faculty Member Electrical Engineering Graduate Student

James Dolengewicz Lucas Whipple Stephanie Wong

Mechanical Engineering Mechanical Engineering Mechanical Engineering

jdolenge@calpoly.edu lwhipple@calpoly.edu sdwong@calpoly.edu

© 2010 James Dolengewicz, Lucas Whipple, and Stephanie Wong

Team Members: .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Statement of Disclaimer ...................................................................................................................................................................2

List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Sponsor Background and Needs........................................................................................................................................... 6

Formal Problem Definition ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

Objective/Specification Development ............................................................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2: Final Design ....................................................................................................................................................................8

Current Design Iteration .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Design Details ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Fulfillment of Design Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 9

Specification Verification Checklist ................................................................................................................................... 10

Cost Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Material Selection ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Special Fabrication and assembly instructions ............................................................................................................ 12

Safety Considerations ............................................................................................................................................................. 12

Maintenance Considerations ............................................................................................................................................... 12

Chapter 3: Design Verification Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Test Descriptions ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Assembly Test ...............................................................................................................................................................................................13

Vibrations Test .............................................................................................................................................................................................13

Test Results ................................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Assembly Test ...............................................................................................................................................................................................13

Vibrations Test .............................................................................................................................................................................................14

Chapter 4: Project Management Plan....................................................................................................................................... 14

Management Plan ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14

initial project management plan ........................................................................................................................................ 14

Chapter 5: Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 15

Existing products ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Specific Technical Data ........................................................................................................................................................... 15

Chapter 6: Design Development ................................................................................................................................................. 16

Concept - Option A ................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Concept - Option B.................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Concept - Option C .................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Chapter 7: Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 19

Acronyms, Definitions, and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 20

List of Appendices .................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 2: Assembled Cube............................................................................................................................................................ 8

Figure 1: Dissasembled Cube...................................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3: Ring and Rail iteration ............................................................................................................................................. 16

Table 1: Technical specifications of CubeSat Structure ................................................................................................... 7

Table 2: Improvements Matrix .................................................................................................................................................. 9

Table 3: Specifications Vibration Checklist ........................................................................................................................ 10

Table 4: Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................. 11

Table 5: CDS Relevant Dimensions for All CubeSat Structures .................................................................................. 15

SPONSOR BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

FORMAL PROBLEM DEFINITION

TABLE 1: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF CUBESAT STRUCTURE

CHAPTER 2: FINAL DESIGN

CURRENT DESIGN ITERATION

FIGURE 2: DISSASEMBLED CUBE FIGURE 1: ASSEMBLED CUBE

FULFILLMENT OF DESIGN OBJECTIVES

TABLE 2: IMPROVEMENTS MATRIX

Category Previous Design Hypercube